New Gun Violence Research Center in California

He may be on record with allowing licensed persons he knows personally to possess a black powder musket as long as it's locked up, but that's about it.
 
My access to the article is now limited... From memory:

The article quoted him as saying he does not support universal background check laws and he described them as "pointless" and should not be pursued. 'Research indicates will not reduce people coming into ER with gunshot wounds.' That was given as an example.

He has contributed a little under 1.5 million to firearms research in the past. Over the last few decades. California just dropped five million on him. He is more than likely going to be producing a lot of studies very quickly.
 
So I can get to the article directly with Ghostery blocking tracking software, but if I post that link here, then it goes back through the subscription portal.

The article basically says the Cali legislature is providing $5M funding, and that there is little research on gun violence because the CDC doesn't allow it.


Additionally, the article notes:
"Dr. Wintemute, 64 years old, said that he intends to study some basic questions about guns in California, including who is most at risk for gun violence and whether the state’s tight controls on firearms are having an effect.

“We don’t know about the prevalence of firearm ownership, we don’t know about the risks and benefits of firearm ownership, we don’t know nearly as much as we think we know about who is at risk and why,” he said in a phone interview."

Local gun groups indicated the $5M would be used on anti gun activities to disarm lawful owners.

You didn't miss much.
 
very, very unlikely the good doctor doesn't already have his conclusions. Now he needs to cobble some supporting data....
 
Wow... just wow...

https://www.propublica.org/article/meet-the-doctor-who-gave-1-million-to-keep-his-gun-research-going

Has your research ever made gun control advocates uncomfortable?

I did a gun show study. When I started crunching numbers on gun show sales, and looking at the surveys, I came to realize — as interesting as this is, gun shows themselves are not a big part of the problem. I felt obligated to add this into my report.

Before we released the study, I had a conference call with a bunch of organizations that I knew were interested in working to close the gun show loophole, and I told them what we were saying. That was a very uncomfortable conversation. People got very angry. It was going to make it more difficult for them to do what they wanted, which was to close the gun show loophole.
Click to expand...

I don't know why they were upset. The supposed "findings" were out of California which has no "gun show loophole".

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20070620_gunstudy/

"Then I realized that everybody (at the gun shows) was using cell phones," he recalled in a recent interview.

Wintemute decided to do likewise. He recorded his observations by calling up his voice mail, the capacity of which he had expanded for the study. The voice mail messages were then transcribed by members of Wintemute's staff.
Click to expand...

Implication being he is illegally recording phone conversations.

but then he goes on to say:

Instead, he reported seeing "24 definite and three probable straw purchases" in the four comparison states, and "one straw purchase and one probable straw purchase" in California.

Some were fairly blatant. On three occasions, all outside California, he observed straw purchasers buying multiple guns in a single transaction. He even saw a licensed retailer at a gun show in Florida processing multiple straw purchases simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Without any evidence whatsoever.

As he anticipated, the sale of assault weapons and undocumented private party gun transactions were far less common at gun shows in California than at gun shows in the other states.
Click to expand...

Maybe because they are all banned?? :confused:

That study is the craziest thing. He is the worst researcher ever. No sane person should ever give him money.
 
TXAZ said:
The article basically says the Cali legislature is providing $5M funding, and that there is little research on gun violence because the CDC doesn't allow it.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a lie in itself. The CDC can, and has, studied gun violence. What it is prohibited from doing is advocating FOR gun control. I doubt that California version will have the same restriction though.

2015 CDC Report in Urban Firearms Violence
2013 Priorities for Research to Reduce Firearms Violence
2011 Firearms Deaths in Metropolitan areas
2005 Firearms Laws and Related Violence
 
Last edited:
Having seen these sort of folks present at professional conferences, the basic problem with gun violence research is that starts with the supposition that just owning guns is problematic and denying the basis of the 2nd Amend.

They do find when doing the research honestly that most gun laws and restrictions used in the past have little success in preventing gun violence.

Thus, they search for restrictions that would impact gun violence but most of them would fundamentally alter the perceptions and reality of civilian gun ownership.

There would be little research on how gun ownership might benefit folks or how ownership might be altered to prevent crime. The thrust is to remove ownership from criminals (laudable) but that would entail reducing law abiding ownership.

Some of these researchers will openly scorn gun owners and mock them in informal interactions.
 
What it is prohibited from doing is advocating FOR gun control. I doubt that California version will have the same restriction though.
Click to expand...

This cat has gun control groups on speed dial and felt the need to give them a conference call to placate them before his "research" came out. I am sure he will be completely fair and impartial.

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top